1. There is being.
2. There is an absence of being as a deficiency of being.
3. There are two states to being as "being as a whole" and "being as a part". Whole is respective to being, part is respective to deficiency of being.
4. "Being as a whole" exists in relationship to "being as a part" thus both function together as a whole.
5. The relationship between "being as a whole" and "being as a part" results in a contrast considering this relationship points to two parts, thus both function as parts and not as a whole.
6. "Wholism" is a part of "Multiplicity". "Multiplicity" is the whole of the "whole".
7. A contradiction occurs through the application of the "whole" and the "multiple" thus necessitating contradiction underlying these to foundations of measurement thus measurement itself.
I do believe we are getting somewhere.
But its not a contradiction as such; more a semantic paradox.
Contradictions can only occur in strict logic.
But here we are struggling with the limits of language.
You need to consider the notion of illusion.
Let me use a simpler example:
A hand consists in part of fingers.
Are the fingers separate from the hand?
Well in one sense they are not separate, but in another sense they are separate.
Its not a contradiction to say that in certain contexts, fingers are both
separate and not separate from the hand.
One might be tempted to say that its an illusion that fingers are separate.
But if that separateness had no ontological value, then we would not be
able to use them to count with, or to hold things, or to make incy-wincy-spider.
So then is it illusion that they are not separate?
No, because they never can exist unless they are first part of the whole.
You see, we are using limited words to describe qualities
which have some quantitative measurement to them.
One has to be quite clear on the difference between a purely logical
and quantitative use of ideas; like in math and programming computers
on the one hand;
and on the other,
the use of words as metaphors and descriptive language which only ever
hope to roughly describe the world inexactly.
But when it comes to describing mind or being,
the mathematical/logical aspect of logos is woefully inadequate.
This is why so many have tried to extract the essential qualities of being;
the core metaphorical / metaphysical components of mind.
Jung did a fair job, as did the Vedics.
But if you try and get too precise in defining the essential qualities;
you lose them - its like trying to hold quicksilver.